Author: Albert Silver
Date: 10:07:12 11/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 1999 at 11:28:33, Lawrence S. Tamarkin wrote:
>I think that this time it is just saturation of the chess buying market place
>(for the database part), at work. Chess Base 7 has clearly overtaken all
>competetion as the database of choice. But notice that Chess Assistant company
>now has many interesting tutorial progams, including one on Tal.
>
>Kind of reminds me of what the Russians did when they lost the space race to
>land on the moon; Instead, they increased their expertise in space studies, and
>orbited many more people than the US.
>
>Larry T.
I think the instructional programs by CA are superb (Strategy, Studies, etc...)
though the early ones clearly need a patch. The fact that they are selling
M-Chess Pro might mean an internal engine for the DB in the future, though
Crafty is already excellent. CA5 has been in the making for some time, though
what we can expect in it is anyone's guess. Frankly, though excellent, I've
always disliked the board and pieces, and have hoped for an alternate set of
pieces. Actually, I think that if they allowed one to design one's own set they
would have something there. I imagine there are a number of people who would
enjoy this and it would generate more interest in it. Also, my biggest DB is of
course from CB because where else can one get 30,000+ commented GM games? If
support for the .cbh format were better, I would use CA much more.
In fact my main gripes with CA would be:
1) The board and pieces. Some like them, some don't. I don't and that is a big
stumbling block when you consider using it as a constant research/study tool.
Since it is of course difficult to satisfy all, why not follow the above
suggestion?
2) The internal engines. There CB is in a class by itself: Fritz, Junior,
Hiarcs, etc... CA again really needs at least one engine that can generate
sufficient interest. Perhaps Shredder, Ferret (if Bruce were to warm to the
idea), Rebel, or Chess Tiger. Any of these would be necessary to compete as an
equal. It can't be underestimated. Having a top program immediately go over
one's position is tremendously useful.
3) Better support of the .cbh format. If I could simply import my games from CBM
I would be a very happy camper. As it is, there are a number of problems, and
this really cannot be done reliably. I tried importing just BIG99 (no commented
games), and I even removed the text introduction, and ran into a lot of
problems.
4) Cut and Paste functions. CB's ability to cut and paste moves, and FEN
positions make many things much easier.
Basically, I love CA but without the above, it's just too much of a hassle. I
think that it is much faster (no comparison) and far better at handling
transfers between files. The toolbar on the side makes this a piece of cake
CB has a lot to love, but it isn't above criticism either.
1) A lot of it's functions are SLOW. This can be an absolute pain even with the
search booster. Apart from maybe a search of games by a specific player, CA is
several times faster (I have yet to see a search, no matter how complicated,
take more than 1min30 on my K6-2/350 with an IDE HD while CB puffs away for long
minutes). Considering that this would be a core element of a DB program it loses
a LOT of points IMO here.
2) Transferring games from a DB to the next is not elementary. Sure, it isn't
difficult once you get the hang of it, but it is a lot more difficult that the
simple drag and drop of CA.
Albert Silver
>
>
>
>On November 25, 1999 at 09:28:40, Robert Ericsson wrote:
>
>>Major price cuts on both CA4 and CB5 seems to indicate that we will
>>see new versions of both programs in a near future. Before Christmas?
>>Anyone who knows?
>>
>>/Robert
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.